technology — European UPC Patent Cases
1,714 decisions indexed
Page 11 of 58 · 1,714 total
TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON v.ASUSTEK Computer inc., Arvato Netherlands B.
This Final Order of the Court of Appeal concerns an application for the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure in proceedings between Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (as appellant/claimant) and ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Arvato Netherlands B.V. (as respondents/defendants, jointly 'ASUS'). The Court addressed the proportionality of confidentiality measures, particularly regarding access to confidential information by employees of the parties and the application of an 'External Eyes Only' regime. The Court established that employees of a party should generally be granted access to confidential information, subject to appropriate judicial control, and that potential harm to third parties from licensing-related confidential information may be mitigated by barring the employee from involvement in licensing negotiations for a defined period.
Nordmeccanica S.p.A. v.Bobst Manchester Limited
This order concerns a procedural application by the Defendant, Nordmeccanica S.p.A., to change the language of proceedings from German to English in an infringement action brought by Bobst Manchester Limited based on European patent EP3067437. The Defendant argued that neither party has a business connection with Germany, that English is the prominent language in the relevant technical field, and that the change would promote procedural economy. The Claimant did not submit additional comments on the merits of the application.
Applicant *** v.Respondent
The President of the Court of Appeal reviewed a petition challenging the Registrar's refusal to enter the applicant on the list of representatives before the Unified Patent Court. The applicant had submitted his application on 29 August 2025, relying on a 'Kandidatenkurs Fischbachau' Certificate from 1989 under Rule 12.1(a) of the EPLC Rules, but the Registrar rejected it as filed outside the one-year transition period from the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The President held that the one-year time limit in Rule 12.1 of the EPLC Rules is not discriminatory and dismissed the petition.
Guardant Health, Inc. v.Sophia Genetics SA, Sophia Genetics SAS, Sophia Genetics SRL, Sophia Genetics GmbH
Guardant Health, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Sophia Genetics group before the Paris Local Division, alleging infringement of four European patents (EP 3470533, EP 3591073, EP 3443066, EP 3766986) relating to liquid biopsy technology for cancer diagnosis. The Court addressed three key issues: whether the Applicant had delayed unreasonably in filing the application, whether the divisional patent contained added matter, and whether the Applicant had demonstrated infringement with sufficient certainty. The Court found that a three-month delay was reasonable given the complexity of the case, that the divisional patent contained added matter because the claimed invention could not be directly and unambiguously derived from the original PCT application, and that the Applicant failed to meet its burden of proof for infringement by relying solely on a press release.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v.Inverquark Deutschland GmbH a. o.
This case concerns European Patent EP 3 653 275 B8 and involves a dispute between Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. (applicant) and Inverquark Deutschland GmbH and Inverquark GmbH (respondents). The applicant had previously obtained an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order executed at the respondents' trade fair stand at 'Aquanale Köln' on October 30, 2025. After initially indicating they would seek review of that order, the respondents withdrew that intention and instead requested the appointment of a supplementary expert opinion and the release of the detailed description prepared by the court-appointed expert.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE v.ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE SAS, ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A, ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A, ROBERT BOSCH DOO BEOGRAD, BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
1 ORDONNANCE DE PROCEDURE de la Cour d’appel de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet rendue le 21 janvier 2026 APPELANTE ET DEMANDERESSE A L’ACTION EN CONTREFAÇON DEVANT LE TRIBUNAL DE PREMIERE INSTANCE VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGE, 34, RUE SAINT-ANDRE 93012 BOBIGNY CEDEX, FRANCE (ci-après dé
Pinterest Germany GmbH, Pinterest Europe Ltd, Pinterest Inc. v.Nagravision Sàrl,
Nagravision Sàrl filed an infringement action against Pinterest entities based on EP 3965466. The Pinterest defendants applied under R. 323 RoP to change the language of proceedings from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The President of the Court of First Instance considered the domiciliation of the parties and the need for efficient coordination among multiple defendants. The order addressed the application for language change and the question of whether existing pleadings and documents should be translated.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v.HMD Global Oy
An order issued by the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division in an infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 667 981, establishing a general confidentiality regime under Rule 262A RoP for FRAND licence negotiations between the parties. Both parties had coordinated out-of-court and welcomed the proposed approach. The order classifies publicly unknown details of the confidential licence negotiations as confidential, sets out procedures for marking and objecting to confidentiality designations, restricts access to designated persons, and provides for potential periodic penalty payments for culpable breaches.
Applicant *** v.Amycel, LLC
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected an application for suspensive effect filed by the Applicant (defendant in the underlying infringement action) against a decision by default of The Hague Local Division finding it liable for infringement of EP 1 993 350. The Applicant sought to suspend enforcement of parts of the default decision requiring it to send registered letters to customers, publish a notice on its website, and pay EUR 50,000 in interim damages. The Court held that the Applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying suspensive effect, as it did not demonstrate that the decision was manifestly erroneous or that its interest in maintaining the status quo outweighed Amycel's interest in enforcement.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
1 The Hague - Local Division UPC-CFI-1048/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 16/01/2026 regarding: withdrawal Claimant 1) BTL Medizintechnik GmbH Represented by Tobias Wuttke Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675, Munich, Germany
IMC Créations v.Mul-T-Lock France
1 Division Locale de Paris UPC_CFI_702/2024 UPC_CFI_369/2025 Décision au fond du Tribunal de première instance de la Juridiction unifiée du brevet, rendue le 16/01/2026 EN-TETE : 1. Le brevet européen devenu unitaire et modifié de manière inconditionnelle, prend effet à la date de d
Ona Patents SL v.Google Ireland Limited a.o.
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation concerning EP 2 263 098 B1, a patent relating to methods for determining location estimates using positioning engines and signalling devices. The court held that the patent was valid but not infringed by Google's products, as the alleged infringing products did not embody every claimed component required for direct infringement. Costs were ordered against the Claimant for the infringement action, with a split for the counterclaim costs.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order concerns a revocation action regarding European Patent EP4185356 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division Milan. The defendant (patent proprietor) sought to introduce auxiliary requests 2A to 13A into the proceedings in response to clarity objections raised by the claimant. The Court held that while the application was admissible, it was not allowable, rejecting the request because subsequent amendments are only permitted on an exceptional basis and the defendant should have foreseen the clarity objections.
(1) GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED (2) NAGOR LIMITED (3) GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED (4) GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED (5) GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS (6) EUROSILICONE SAS (7) GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L. (8) GC AESTHETICS GmbH (9) GC AESTHE v.ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A.
This case concerns a Preliminary Objection filed by 13 defendants associated with GC Aesthetics challenging the Unified Patent Court's (UPC) jurisdiction over alleged infringements of EP 3 107 487 B1 in non-UPC contracting states (Ireland, Spain, Norway, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom). The defendants argued that the claimant, Establishment Labs S.A., relied solely on the domicile of Defendant 13 (Romed N.V.) in Belgium without evidencing any activities in non-UPC countries. The Local Division Brussels dismissed the Preliminary Objection, holding that the UPC has jurisdiction over all national designations of the European patent when at least one defendant is rightfully sued before the UPC, and that the substantive assessment of infringement in those territories belongs to the merits stage.
ZTE Corporation v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et. al.
This order from the Mannheim Local Division concerns procedural requests in an infringement action relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. Samsung sought to produce a third-party licence agreement and to extend the written procedure under R. 36 RoP to respond to ZTE's newly raised arguments regarding a published rate in the FRAND counterclaim context. The court rejected the request to extend the written procedure, provisionally permitted Samsung to respond in the interim procedure, ordered production of the licence agreement subject to confidentiality protections under R. 262A RoP, and closed the written procedure.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG v.Vibrantz GmbH
This case concerns an application by Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG for re-establishment of rights (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand) after missing the deadline to file a cost determination application under Rule 151 of the Rules of Procedure. The underlying dispute involved European Patent No. 3 215 288, where the Local Chamber Munich had previously issued a decision on October 10, 2025, splitting costs 60% to the plaintiff and 40% to the defendant. The court granted the application for re-establishment of rights, finding that despite the general rule that lack of legal knowledge does not suffice as grounds for re-establishment, the applicant could not be held responsible for the legal error in this specific case configuration.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
Emboline, Inc. alleged that AorticLab srl's 'FLOWer' embolic protection device infringed European Patent EP 2 129 425, which relates to an embolic protection device with a cylindrical outer structure and conical inner structure for capturing emboli. The Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the attacked embodiment did not include a pull loop or other graspable structure engageable by a hook as required by claim 1 of the patent. The defendant's conditional counterclaim for invalidity was not decided because it was dependent on a finding of infringement, and the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the counterclaim.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. v.American Wave Machines Inc.
WhiteWater West Industries Inc. filed a revocation action against American Wave Machines, Inc. concerning European patent EP 2 728 089 ('Sequenced chamber wave generator controller and method'). The defendant failed to file a Defence to revocation within the two-month time period and did not respond to the action in any way. The claimant requested a decision by default, arguing that the patent should be revoked for extension of claim 1 beyond the application as filed, lack of novelty over prior art and public prior use, and lack of inventive step. The Court considered the conditions for a decision by default under Rule 355 of the Rules of Procedure.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding EP 3 613 453. After the Boards of Appeal of the EPO revoked the patent during the appeal proceedings, VMR Products (the appellant/defendant) applied to withdraw its appeal, which NJOY (the respondent/claimant) consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered VMR Products to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 20% refund of the appeal court fees under the version of R. 370.9(b)(iii) RoP applicable before 1 January 2026.
Juul Labs International, Inc. v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
This case concerns an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the revocation of European Patent EP 3 430 921. After the Central Division Paris revoked the patent and the EPO Boards of Appeal subsequently confirmed the revocation, Juul Labs applied to withdraw its appeal under R. 265 RoP, which NJOY consented to. The Court permitted the withdrawal, ordered Juul Labs to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings, and granted a 60% reimbursement of the appeal court fees under the pre-amendment R. 370.9(b) RoP.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v.Danieli & C. S.p.A.
Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH filed an application under Rule 190 of the Rules of Procedure seeking an order requiring Danieli & C. S.p.A. to produce documents and technical information relating to a plant built by Danieli for Hoa Phat Group in Vietnam, allegedly infringing EP 2 624 977. The Milan Local Division rejected the application as inadmissible and unfounded, finding that Primetals had likely known of the plant since at least July 2024 due to its long-standing commercial relationship with Hoa Phat, and that the photographs and technical analysis provided were insufficient to substantiate the infringement allegation.
Microsoft Corporation v.Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy
This case concerns an infringement action filed by Suinno Mobile & AI Technologies Licensing Oy against Microsoft Corporation regarding European patent EP 2 671 173, which relates to a system for mobile Internet browsing using location data. Microsoft Corporation filed a counterclaim for revocation, and Suinno applied to amend the patent in response. The Court addressed the procedural requirements and admissibility criteria for such amendment applications, distinguishing between objective requirements (filing deadline, inclusion of at least one amendment, use of the official language) and matters of judicial discretion (clarity, sufficiency of explanation, reasonableness of number of amendments).
Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd. v.Align Technology, Inc.
Angelalign sought discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of a procedural order issued by the Local Division Düsseldorf in provisional measures proceedings concerning EP 4 346 690, which had disregarded certain non-infringement arguments and exhibits from Angelalign's Rejoinder. The Court of Appeal, sitting as a standing judge, dismissed the request, finding that Angelalign had failed to substantiate why the impugned order was manifestly erroneous and that allowing the request would disrupt the scheduled first-instance oral hearing.
Nera Innovations Ltd. v.Xiaomi Comunication Co., Ltd a.o.
This case concerns an application for a cost decision (Rule 151 RoP) filed by Nera Innovations Ltd. following appeal proceedings under Rule 220.2 RoP against an order of the Hamburg Local Chamber dated 24 April 2024, which had rejected the claimant's request to serve Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd. and Xiaomi Inc. through their German subsidiary. The court addressed the scope of reimbursable representation costs, the number of authorized representatives required, and the recovery of travel expenses for oral hearings. The decision establishes that appeal proceedings on specific procedural issues do not require more than one authorized representative and that the standard ceiling of reimbursable representation costs does not apply to such procedural appeals.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) v.Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co, Ltd a.o.
A patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3258692 was filed by Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) against eight defendants, including Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and related entities. The claimant subsequently applied to withdraw the action against all defendants before the closure of the written procedure. The Düsseldorf Local Division permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees to the claimant.
PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co v.EPO
1 Paris Central Division Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts UPC_CFI_1771/2025 betreffend das EP 3 327 608 erlassen am 30. Dezember 2025 LEITSÄTZE: 1. Das Einheitliche Patentgericht wendet gemäß Art. 1 Abs. 2, Art. 20 des Übereinkommens üb
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This is a procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning an application for provisional measures based on European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1. The Defendants sought leave to appeal a prior procedural order of 16 December 2025, which had directed the Court to disregard non-infringement arguments submitted in the Defendants' Rejoinder. The Court denied leave to appeal, finding that the order was a valid exercise of its procedural discretion under Rules 9 and 209.1(a) RoP and was closely connected to the specific circumstances of the case.
VMR Products LLC v.NJOY Netherlands B.V.
VMR Products LLC, proprietor of European Patent EP 3 456 214 relating to a vaporizer (electronic cigarette), appealed a decision of the Paris Central Division that revoked the patent in its entirety for lack of inventive step. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, confirming that the patent's claims, including independent claim 1 and dependent claims, lack an inventive step over the prior art, particularly the Pan reference. VMR Products was ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v.Katun Germany GmbH a.o.
Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese claimant in a patent infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division, requested simultaneous interpretation from English into Japanese during the oral hearing. The Defendants did not object to Canon engaging an interpreter at its own expense but opposed court-organised interpretation and associated costs. The court applied a two-stage test and held that while allowing simultaneous interpretation was appropriate, the costs should not become costs of the proceedings, as Japanese is neither an official language of a Contracting Member State nor of the Local Division.
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Digital UK Limited, Amazon Europe Core S.à.r.l., Amazon EU S.à.r.l., Amazon Technologies, Inc., v.InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings, SAS, InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS
Amazon sought suspensive effect under Rule 223.4 RoP for its appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that prohibited Amazon from pursuing anti-suit injunctions or equivalent measures before the UK High Court that would impede InterDigital's patent infringement proceedings before the UPC. The Court of Appeal, presided by Judge Klaus Grabinski, dismissed Amazon's request, finding that Amazon had not demonstrated the impugned order was manifestly erroneous or that irreversible harm was imminent.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.